Vark

1. The German Final solution was a product of anti-semitism and theories of racial superiority. The Arab/Persian states/territories, especially Iran, Gaza and the West Bank mimic both these motivators, especially targeting the younger generation with quite vile educational material and TV programmes. The Grand-Mufti of Jerusalem chided Hitler on the slow pace of the initial wave of exterminations and backed his attempt to irradicate most of the Jewish race. So, no not really that different a motive. Oh, and do watch the programmes comparing the Jews either to dogs or apes! 2. The Original Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression, sorry I know it's not PC to say it, but Jerusalem, a Christian city for some 350 years, was captured by the Muslim Arabs. Burning down the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, built over the place where Jesus was supposed to have been crucified, was bound to cause a little animosity!! Imagine the Muslim response to the capturing of Mecca and the trashing of the Ka'bah? 3. You are right the real problem came with the British, but it was the 1915 Sykes-Picot accord, promising British support for an Arab homeland and the 1917 Balfour Declaration, promising to support an independent state of Israel that was bound to muddy the water. 4. It is tempting to take a relatavistic stance when looking at the Arab and Jewish actions prior to WWII and towards the end of the mandate, for the sake of being 'fair' but an objective observer is more likely to see the Jews as more sinned against than sinning. I was shocked at how many were murdered during that period with retaliations an obvious response. On a different point if a nation deserved a state by the ammount of effort it exerted, to improve the country it lived in the Jews would win hands down, hence the massive pre-war arab imigration to take advantage of the work opportunities. 5. As somebody who was taken around concentration camps when young and who walked around Yad Vashem for four hours in a numb daze (it was the first time the figure six million really hit home) I'm sorry if you think that I abused the term holocaust. A study of the language used, especially by Iran is quite chilling and makes oblique references to wiping out Israel and using fire to cleanse the place. The wording is deliberately designed to invoke the holocaust, as is the end result. An Iranian nuclear attack would only have to target a few key population centres for that goal to be virtually realised and if you do not believe the Iranian rhetoric then remember, Hitler made clear his ambitions in the late 30's and we chose not to believe him. 6. Would the US really go to the wall for Israel, especially after perhaps years of carefully coreographed propaganda, remember the Arabs believe their greatest strength, regarding Israel, is time. Western democracies, by their nature are short term organisations, despotic one party states can wait years, and once the Iranians get their nukes they can pick their moment. If they were clever they would use a proxy to deliver the weapons and then appeal to the UN about being victims of Zionist aggression, that always seems to go down well. 7. Israel can loose a war, an EMP pulse would reduce most of the IDF to an inert lump, or a chemical attack or blizzard of rockets or introduction of new technologies could quite easily replicate a 1973 style situation. Denial of server attacks using zombie PC's could gain precious time for a successful assault. In fact an EMP attack would so degrade the civilian technological infrastructure that you would not need a conventional attack to succeed in your strategic objectives. Remember also, you do not need to defeat Israel quickly just persue strategies which will make the current Jewish state unsustainable. 8. As for extremism, it is a subjective word. Alot of Westerners who work in Arab states find the real culture, not the ersatz expatocentric culture, to be extreme, in contrast to the Western model. So extreme in what sense?

Secondbrooks I'll see your rifles and BAR and raise you an MG-42 an MP-40, the odd MP-44 and Kar 98K's all firing smokeless ammo. Talking of the M1's effectiveness is there any data to show its superiority over the bolt action models? What's that Secondbrooks? You'll see my MG and raise me a Platoon of M-4's a battery of 105's and a brace of P-38/47's!! But that's not fair!! Looking forward to seeing if and how BF simulate the different tactical doctrines of the opposing infantry and will we have beaten zones for our MG's? Essential if you are to replicate the typical German defensive bocage layout. Talking of that will we have the infantry able to dig firing posts through the earthen banks? Oh and will AT guns, who have been pre-placed, have a concealment bonus? Oh and.... etc etc

I disagree with the majority of what BigDuke has said, apart from the fact that most Arab states depend on their very existence on the Palestinian problem, but how is the thread going down hill? No one has resorted to ad-hominem attacks and most threads provide useful discussion material, the trouble with the issue is that just talking about it is sometimes classified as problem. BigDuke, if the conflict did not exist the Israelis might develop even more world beating companies and have an even greater standard of living, perhaps each citizen might get to own six mobile phones! Their population might even get to enjoy their conscription free youth and not have to suffer the dislocation of their later lives caused by reserve service. The vast expenditure on military infrastructure could be then spent on tackling poverty, especially child poverty and sub-standard housing. Israel has suffered because of the constant war footing, they have made money from it because they adapt to the environment and are very successful at arms sales because they are successful at winning wars. The reason for the military overmatch is because they are surrounded by enemies, potential or all too real, who seek to threaten their entire existence. Losing a war against Arab armies does not mean national humiliation and loss of territory but complete extinction and a certain Austrian corporal already tried that solution. That is why Israel will, I believe, never allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon, one holocaust is enough for that country.

Lethaface, hundreds of Jews had been murdered in the 20's and 30's in staged riots or acts of terror, settling land that the Arabs had sold them the land rights to. Land they thought was unworkable and expected to make a profit from the stupid Jews who would return home after realising their mistake, until the Jews transformed it into prime real estate using the latest techniques of irrigation and planting crops. The Arabs then demanded that some of these areas be handed over to them in the post-war settlement! The Aliyas, where thousands of Jews travelled to Israel, in the pre-war period, are often ignored by the Palestinians, as is the fact that a third of 'Palestinians' displaced had specifically emigrated to Israel because there was work for them there. The UN quote shows why that organisation is treated with so much suspicion by Israel. The mayor of Haifa begged the Arab population (one of the largest) to stay in 1948 but they listened to their leaders, who confident of victory told them to leave for a brief period. Instead of returning to claim all of Haifa, most of it developed by israeli's they lost everything when the Arab armies exhibited their usual incompetence and were soundly beaten. The much trumpeted tragedy of the Nakba, was really a self-inflicted wound and the disputes over Gaza, Jerusalem and the West Bank come about because the Arabs continually loose to the Israelis. I'm not excusing attrocities perpetrated by extreme Israeli groups, who took notions of self-defence and Zionist nationalistic destinty too far, but for the most part, the Arabs willingly left their homes, confident in returning to a Jew free land. They bet it all on the Arab Legion and five Arab armies and lost and have not stopped whinging since. Their 'suffering' has been ruthlessly exploited by surrounding Arab nations, all too eager to divert their own failings, by creating a series of myths and lies about the situation. The Israelis pulled out of Lebanon and were rewarded by their efforts by Hizbullah rocket attacks and raids, they pulled out of Gaza and were rewarded by Hamas rockets and suicide attacks. Often these rockets were launched from the skeletons of the greenhouses the settlers had created and not destroyed when they left, these hated symbols of 'occupation' were trashed by the manipulated mobs instead of being kept to provide valuable hard-currency by exporting their produce. The much criticised Operation Cast Lead, in 2009, has stopped the rockets, the much criticised Wall has stopped suicide bombers and the much criticised 2006 operation stopped Hizbullah rocket attacks. Yes, one could argue, these solutions are only temporary and create new problems but they have achieved what they set out to do, namely to allow Israeli citizens to get on with their lives. Final point, if the situation was reversed and the Arabs were superior, just how long would Israel last?

Don't forget the effects of the bocage on CAS, both calling in the strikes, aquiring the targets from the air and conducting basic BDA's. Also the thick foliage and high banks severely reduced the effects of shrapnel and blast from any HE weapon. Tanks became trapped in such terrain denying them the ability to manoeuvre, and what is a tank without mobility, useless. If they did try to flank any MLR they had to be escorted by infantry and Normandy showed how basic the allies doctine was, in that respect. It was not just the horrible terrain the Allies faced, it stripped them of their weapon superiority, in terms of close support, all but eliminated their advantage in numbers and exposed tactical failings in terms of combined operations. Not only that, it concealed the Germans lack of close support, mitigated greatly the failings of the absurd command structure the Germans operated under, playing to their Kampfgruppe ad-hoc specialities. Finally it played to the German superiority in terms of MG's, with their high rate of fire ideal for engaging the fleeting targets typical in such terrain and thie disposable anti-tank systems, that required point blank engagement ranges to be effective. Finally, talking of MG's and the bocage, I remember the famous GI quote about how close the Germans were to them, in such terrain. "Oh we're close enough to reach through the hedgerow and put the safety on, on their spandau's".

Now if I was in Mossad, I would have had a special monkey model Merkava created and given strict instructions for the crew to abandon it. Didn't the British get hold of a T-80U or T-90 by setting up a bogus shipping company, with the Russians realising too late their mistake! As for Shermans versus Panthers the merits of relative spotting will come into their own during those engagements, no more telepathic infantry support saving the buttoned tanks. Bocage, relative spotting and tank hunter teams, sweaty palms dead ahead in 2010.

Yup, doing the sensible thing, hunkering down with their mess tins full of tomatos and onions whilst the sturm and drang raged overhead. Oh and because the F-111's were tank plinking at night, alot of the AFV's had not run their engines up for days, fearing to do so would leave a nice big thermal footprint, so the crews abandoned their vehicles and lived underground.

Take care using Medina Ridge or Desert Storm as an example of the uberness of the M1. When the US army looked at the engagement afterwards in detail (they built a computer simulation as an instructional device) they found quite a few of the Iraqi tanks had been sans batteries, as the crews had removed them to use as a power source for their lights in the bunkers. Bunkers, where the crews were confined, most of the day, due to the air attacks and foul weather, which meant their tanks lacked basic maintenance, were not correctly bore sited etc and were next to useless. Finally, the AP ammo they used was often a home-grown steel penetrator which lacked accuracy or penetration.

Elmar, I have re-read your comments and you are correct technically, though there was an allusion that some of the posters were becoming radicalised like the 9/11 terrorists (can I use that word, or is it now creator of man-caused disasters). But you are correct, a cursory viewing of the site is not the same being a regular viewer or contributor, I did you an injustice, apologies. MikeyD, hit the nail on the head! It reminds me of a pupil, last term, who came out with the all too typical, "Well I don't care" argument to which my response was. "Well yes you do, otherwise you wouldn't have said that". Blank incomprehension followed, until it was explained to him by one of my more switched on students. I really don't think Steve is fully aware of the emotional connection people made with the game. I loved Steel Panthers, but when I finally found the triple CM CD pack and loaded it it was like a little piece of me went "this is what I have been looking for". I used to doodle in my jotter, at school what I imagined my fantasy computer game would look like (they are painfully basic when it came to flight sims) but CM was 3D, like my doodles, it had accurate vehicle models, like my doodles!! I watched in amazement as my Jagdpanthers crept through the fog, or my grenadiers fought in blizzards, my wifes comment, when watching me fail again at A Winter Wonderland" was instructional at the impact of the game. "Do you have to play that game, it makes me feel cold!". I even hesitated to send my SS off their start lines in "A day at the zoo" because I was worried for their safety, for christ's sake I thought A) It's a game They are bloody SS!! Raus! Raus! But I can also remember the bitter disappointment at finding out BORG SPOTTING!! Arghh!! For a while I did not play CM such was the emotional letdown but then remembered it's only a game! Still it felt as thought the game had personally let me down and it was not because of an understandable trade-off by a small outfit pushing the boundaries of wargaming. There was a fascinating thread, a couple of months ago, about SF's depiction of 1:1 and how some players began to identify far more with their troop's suffering. I think this emotional bond with the game should never be forgotten, especially when people think the love of their life, has just been rejected. Perhaps a more apposite anaology would be the GS whiners are reacting as though their big CM1 sis has been rejected for another woman, and they will do everything to convince themselves big CM sis is far better than that cheap SF slut and Steve is the worst villain that crept upon the face of 3D terrain.

Am I looking at the same GameSquad page as poster here? I'd never been to the site until the link provided a couple of pages ago, but equating some of the posters there with Jihadist fundamentalists because they are negative to BFSF!!! A sense of objectivity is why I visit these pages, smearing dissenting voices risks you becoming the monster you so obviously loathe. All I got from wasting thirty minutes of my life at GS's CM section was a under-current of betrayal and resentment, which if certain words were replaced, in the postings, could have come from an agony aunts column about the feelings of a rejected partner/lover. It seems to me that CM emotionally affected some people far more than they would admit and they believed, as loyal supporters, that there opinions would not only be listened too, but acted upon. When BF decided on SF and rejected 'their game', note the words used in many threads such as "abandoned", some seem to have have gone into the classic Kubler-Ross five stages of grief and for some they have not got passed the anger stage. Others are convinced that they have power and influence and that secretly one day Steve will be 'theirs again", a classic case of delusional thinking. This is why any rational debate about company growth, new ventures etc fall on deaf ears, you here talk about matters of the head, they still are locked into matters of the heart. If this were some cheesy Hollywood schlockbuster, Steve would confront Michael, and all the other bitter posters at GS and have a tearful hugging session, whilst explaining, through racking sobs about "how I didn't realise how much I'd hurt you, man!". Rejuvenated by this touching display of new-age manliness and fired up by a sense of Obamanian, yes we can, the group would walk into the sunset ready to be one again!! Face it Steve you created a bunch of groupies, now they are scorned groupies. Did you ever see "Play Misty for me?"

Hcrof, fantastic DAR, thanks for keeping me entertained, and on the edge of my computer chair! I am intrigued though about the role the CMSF engine is playing, in what seems to be a far more 'realistic' encounter than some CM1 games I've played, or read AAR's about. There are definite pulses of action, with more waiting and manoeuvre than CM1, is this because borg spotting has been removed or because the infantry and firepower model has been greatly improved. I don't play CMSF, the concept does not interest me, but looking at this DAR the advances in the game engine seem to pose pixel commanders with far more of the 'problems' real commanders face. I could be absolutely wrong and the weaponry and technology, of the modern era, could be the real reason for the difference in tempo, but I wonder: If the equivalent forces, Pz IV's for T-62's and AT guns for ATGW's (BMP's would pose a problem) were played on a similar map what would that DAR have been like?

Khane, I think your comments are correct but could be applied to any books on any historical period. Any person, I believe, seeking the 'truth' by reading 'history books' are condemning themselves to a hopeless quest, or are suffering from cognitive dissonance about the truths they contain. My bookshelves are groaning under the weight of history books, as I'm sure its the case for many on this board, and I love reading them, but only because they seem to reinforce some basic 'truths' which can be appiled to situations, in a predictive, analytical, way. Equally of importance, is the realisation and constant reinforcement that each historical event can and should be viewed from multiple perspectives, allowing a window to the past, albeit a very dirty, cracked and optically flawed window. As said before, to Yair, I spent eight months in Israel and talked to literally hundreds of people, both Arabs and Jews and ended up loving and hating the country in equal measure. Sometimes this confusion was on a daily basis, wanting to go home one day, frustrated I did not have longer the next. RCMP, some interesting comments about the Globe and Mail article, written by MacKenzie about the deaths of the UN observers, in 2006. http://www.mail-archive.com/futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca/msg03285.html

Yair, sorry this Iron Wall, by Avi Shlaim http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780140288704,00.html I just asked because the synopsis, on the rear cover, seems to take a similar line to some of your arguments about the impact of the IDF on Israel itself. The penalty I guess for having conscription, the militarisation of your society. When I lived in Israel for 8 months I met citizens who had fought in 67, 73 and the 80's, (not to mention the periods in between) that regular exposure to conflict seemed to understandably have a big impact on them, especially Lebanon.

Just sent to me, and thought this was best suited here (plenty of Afghan talk on the SF forum) who are the worst culprits? http://easterncampaign.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/29-tips-for-bad-writing-on-afghanistan/

A site that looks at wartime atrocities, in WWII. http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres.html Puts any IDF atrocity, real or hyped, into perspective. Yair, have you read "The Iron Wall"? It is sitting on my bookshelf, unread, but "Guests of the Ayatollah" and "The History of the Arab Peoples" are all vying for my limited time. Final Christmas fantasy, will BFC ever be in the same format as Steel Panthers, in other words a list of TOE's from which designers can populate scenarios. No need for waiting for modules, if you want Arab-Israeli, Cold-War, Iran-Iraq, Sino-Soviet, India-Pakistan, Vietnam, Falklands, Korea, OIF, etc, etc you could just pick the forces design a scenario/campaign and game away. Sigh, one can dream!

From my experience, any mention of the words Israel or IDF stands a very good chance of creating a thread that generates more heat than light. My argument is simple, the only morality in wargaming should be not cheating, if we don't like a side, pick its opponent and try to give it a damn good thrashing. Second, if there is a viable market for an IDF product then producing it should be a possibility, if BFC do not want to get involved (understandable given their current workload) sell the ability to produce it. If Russians can make Afghan modules, then I'm sure an enterprising Israeli could produce one; though I do understand that the Russian market for a game, where you can save the motherland from humiliating failure might be stronger than watching the IDF defeat the Arabs, again and again and again. Still, I'd buy it!

Given most of the equipment used by the IDF was NATO standard (give or take some fiddling with the AFV's) and the Arabs used mainly Warpac kit, the logical development schedule would be Cold-War gone hot, then an Arab-Israeli pack/module. I think the sheer range of tactical opportunities the conflict offers would allow limitless scenarios, from small scale skirmishes, Entebbe anyone, to set piece monsters, attacking in the Sinai or defending in the Golan. Miggo, I suspect that some peoples objections to the IDF are based on more than concerns about any controversy the module might generate or supposed infractions, by the IDF, of 'international law'.

I've a good mind to send this thread to Hamas and say well done you've won!! For god's sake, you moralise about the IDF and how 'repugnant' it is, but play the Syrians! Please tell me a city the IDF have wiped clean from the map! I find the Arab-Israeli conflicts fascinating and a logical module for BFC to consider, if they do not I'm sure an enterprising person will buy the franchise, as the Russians have done. Oh, that reminds me how many people on this forum can not wait to play the Soviets in Afghanistan? Another army whose tactics and attitude were morally exemplorary, at least compared to the IDF. Now I'm off the play some Latvian SS and I get a queer sort of tingle thinking about those 12th SS in Normandy, what lovely uniforms, what wicked weaponry!!! Final point, perhaps we could have a forum poll. If BFC or a 'franchisee' were to produce a series of modules about the Arab-Israeli conflict 1948-2006 would you buy it?

If the Warriors new gun is anything like the Bofors 40mm cannon I think sitting in a BMP, loaded or not would be unwise. Particularly interesting is the freeze frame showing the effects of spalling from the APFSDS round.

Given the conflict in Afghanistan has gone on for 8 years I suspect that the lack of MANPADS in theatre is because it would be seen as an escalation too far and risk some covert retaliation, to the supplier. Iran, for all its bellicose statements is really a blowhard, ready to bully when finding weakness and backing off quickly when threatened. As for China, they need the West to sustain their rapid industrial growth, after all, who else would buy crappy toys, made in China but from recycled Western plastic? Their rapid expansion and resources grab in Africa, the " string of pearls" naval strategy etc all require the status quo. I guess a parallel is Libya supplying the PIRA. Although security forces were fearful of ASU's getting their hands on Strelas, the only helicopter brought down was as a result of an engagement with a WWII era HMG. Finally, why bother taking risks when the US have all but said they are going home soon. The greatest weapon our 'enemies' have, in the present conflict is the ability to play the long game not SAM's.

Probably a lot calmer than this pilot. Another problem with present day UAV's is their design precludes aggressive manoeuvring when engaged. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82JDJNjcHZ8&feature=related

If this story is genuine, and it is a big if, think how you could use it to your advantage. One UAV has an encrypted system but when hacked broadcasts feed from a nearby UAV, insurgents think they are free to move! Or less high-tech, broadcasts a recording of where it was 10 minutes earlier. Even easier, the UAV is used as a beater to drive the insurgents into an ambush, thus reducing civilian casualties, imagine watching the UAV circling your hideout, would you stay in there? I just wonder why the story was released now, and is it linked to the stories about Quetta being looked at as the next hunting ground for the Reapers?

Given that most super heroes develop their super-human powers as a direct result of exposure to radiation what powers would you get by only eating bananas? I will look at these fruit now with a greater respect and not mock my wife when she calls the forgotten, smelly brown ones "radioactive". Final thought, why do so many arms videos have music akin to porno films of the 70's?

I remember a story about a Churchill being hit by a panzerfaust which caused all the hatches to be blown open, after the crew recovered, they shut the hatches and kept fighting. This would tend to suggest there is some blast that could be vented, by opening the hatches, but would not think it would reduce the effects of a faceful of molten steel/copper.

Arghhhh! My eyes! My eyes! I cannot see! I cut and pasted onto word, so will peruse without risk of Venetian blind after image syndrome. I certaily know the IDF troopers I talked to, mainly Recce and Paras had a very healthy respect for the Syrian Commandos and on several occasions were saved from being wiped out, at a company level, by IDF air support.